abandoned her community, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú “does not have a social support network.” 8. In regard to the request of the Court to provide clarification regarding the telling of specific facts that may have occurred against the beneficiary, the representatives noted that: a) on February 13, 2009, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú informed those accompanying her that during the first months of that year, “she would frequently and unusually see two people in the places and addresses where [she] frequented,” and she was able to recognize one of those persons. On that same day, “during her travel to work, the man she identified from her community, attempted to come too close to her, upon which she felt fear and hurried her pace and entered a store to lose him. […] Then, she did not see either of these two men again,” and b) on October 12, 2009, upon leaving the house where she worked, she realized that a man was on the front sidewalk watching her home, subsequently, she remained at a store and the person remained watching her. As she was scared, she returned to the home where she worked and, then again, when she went towards her home, she saw the same man that had been watching her. Because she was scared, she returned to her workplace and requested that her cousin go with her, and upon exiting the man continued outside and began taking pictures with his cell phone. On October 13, 2009, upon leaving the other home where she worked, the beneficiary saw the same man watching her and taking her picture with his phone. Mrs. Rosendo Cantú filed a complaint of the facts on November 17, 2009. 9. The Commission noted that the assessment of the risk “was carried out by an institution that has provided accompaniment to Mrs. Rosendo Cantu and that this is a result of the cooperation and coordination between the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries.” 10. In accordance with its jurisdiction, in the framework of the provisional measures, the Court must consider only the arguments that relate strictly and directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. In this way, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to the adoption of the measures still exists, or if new circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency merit their maintenance. Any other issue can only be heard by the Court as a contentious case. 5 11. Maintaining the measures of protection requires an assessment by the Court of the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage, which gave origin to the measures, 6 on the basis of the evidentiary information. 7 From there, the party who seeks the continuance of the measures must provide evidence of the reasons to do so. 8 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering Clause 6; Matter of The Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6. Matter of The Communities of Pueblo Indígena de Kankuamo, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6. 6 Cf. Matter of Kankuamo Indigenous Community. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering Clause 7; Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, Considering Clause 4, and Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haití. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering Clause 11. 7 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter- 4